3 ms·
I don't recall the 2008 election being between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. We had two sucky choices, and people on either side voted for what they thought wa
by Roboprog 15y ago
I don't recall the 2008 election being between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. We had two sucky choices, and people on either side voted for what they thought was the lessor evil, relative to their particular value weightings.
Part of the problem is that we do not have instant runoff elections, so big money need only promote 4 candidates for each position, and FUD all of the others. That way, one of their 4 is almost always chosen (2 "sides" in each D/R primary). Barring instant runoff, perhaps we would be better off with proportional representation in Congress: if Green or Libertarian parties received 10% of the vote each, at least they would have some members present.
- CWuestefeld 15y agoI seem to remember voting for Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries. And for the general election, there were more choices than the two you mention. Instant runoffs are only marginally better than the American "first-past-the-post" system. In particular, they suffer from the perverse effect where voting for your favorite candidate can actually cause him to lose. There's a mathematical proof (Ken Arrows, maybe? I'm getting forgetful) showing that it's impossible for any voting system to have all the handful of qualities one wants in a democratic process. This is actually a pretty decent branch of mathematics. There exist better options, but none that are perfect.
- bartonfink 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrows_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrows_theorem This is what you had in mind.
- Roboprog 15y agoI'd be happy to have "marginally better", at least as a start.
- mseebach 15y agoThe utter euphoria over the election of Obama in 2008 hides very well the fact that 99% apparently voted for the lesser of two evils.